ML20151G596
| ML20151G596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000603, 05000604 |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1988 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, INC., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6804 6P, 6P-OL, 88-570-01-CP-OL, 88-570-1-CP-OL, 88-571-01-CP, 88-571-1-CP, 88-571-1-CP-L, CP, CP-OL, NUDOCS 8807290030 | |
| Download: ML20151G596 (3) | |
Text
hi#I A
q N C.i. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E d" 27 A9 :00 Before Administrative Judges:
bi-Morton B. Margulies, Chairm n Dr. Enneth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris SERVED J g 37 g y
)
In the Matters of ALL CHEMICAL IS0 TOPE ENRICHMENT, INC.
Docket No. 50-603-CP/0L (AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF)
(ASLBPNo. 88-570-01-CP/0L) and ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, INC.
Docket No. 50-604-CP (A1ChemIE Facility-2 (ASLBPNo. 88-571-01-CP)
OliverSprings)
)
July 26, 1988 SPECIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER The Licensing Board held a special prehearing conference in the captioned proceedings on July 21, 1988 at Knoxville, Tennessee.
Attending were the Applicant and the NRC Staff. Although the State of Tennessee filed petitions to participate in the proceedings pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c), it did not appear. Therefore, the petitions could not te considered at the conference as provided for it. 10 C.F.R. f 2.751a(3).
Following discussion tith the parties, the Licensing Itoard ruled as follows:
(a) that the key issues in Docket No. 50-603-CP are those set forth by the Connission in 53 Fed. Reg. 15317(1988);
1 I
8807290030 080726 ADOCK 050 3
l
{DR
) Sob
y t
2 q
(b) that the cited proceeding is not a contested proceeding, as 1
defined by 10 C.F.R. 2.4(n) and that the Licensing Board, withcut conducting a de novo evaluation of the application, will make the detenniSations required of it by the Comission, as set forth in 53 Fed.'
Reg.15317,15318 (1988);
(c) that there are no litigable issues in Docket No. 50-603-OL, no a
party having intervened, and that the proceeding may be dismissed when appropriate; (d) that the key issues in Docket No. 50-604-CP are set forth by the Comission in 53 Fed. Reg. 15315,15316(1988);and (e) that should Applicant seek any exemption from regulatior the request should be pursued in the manner provided for by Comission practice.
A discussion was held on the need for an advisor to the Licensing Board on security matters. NRC Staff offered to make available the services of a person within the Division of Security who is not involved with the subject applications. This proposal was acceptable to the Applicant. Because the need for such services has not yet arisen, the matter will not be pursued at this time.
The final matter discussed was future scheduling. Applicant seeks expeditious handling of the application. NRC Staff states that it will complete its functions as fast as it can consistent with its responsibilities. Staff is still awaiting documents from the Applfcant.
Should they be received quickly Staff estimates its reports can be i
submitted to the Licensing Board in 4 to 6 weeks.
It considers the l
l
-..n.--
n n,,,,_,,n,._,.
..,,,~,..n.
.-.,.~n_,,
I 3
longer period to be more realistic.
Staff's scheduling-appears reasonable considering the matters involved and its responsibilities.
The Licensing Board looks to a timely disposition of the applications.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD w
Morton B. Margulies./Vhairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE t
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 26th day of July,1988.
s 9
_-